rudemix:Best of luck finding enough of a workforce in your population full of geriatrics and trash to work in AZ heat through the summer.

GORDON:FlashHarry: good. let red states kick out the "illegals" and watch their economies take a massive hit like they already are in alabama and georgia. the law of unintended consequences - it's more common than you'd think, especially when your laws are written by racist morons.

Exactly. I keep telling these people that they are racist morons, and explain exactly why, but none of them ever seem to listen. Those idiots.

Psss, come here, a little closer, we don't listen to you because we are too busy laughing at you. Just an FYI hero.

Well minor typo aside, let's see what the long term consequences are on farming, the media rushed out 2 weeks after the law was passed and suggested there was absolutely no way to adjust to the temporary labor shortages.

King Something:RibbyK: FTA: Latinos who are here legally to be asked about their immigration status.

For the past 20 years, I've been asked about my immigration status (Form I-9) on a job application or when hired, and *shock* I didn't run to the ACLU.. If you're in the US legally and actually want a job...

/I wash my own dishes//Am a proud parent who never hired a babysitter (relatives only)

Have you ever been asked about your immigration status at a traffic stop?

Because Arizona's law allows cops to do that. And if you can't prove you're in this country legally right then and there, they'll cuff you and put you in the precinct holding cell until they finish doing enough of a background check on you to determine whether or not you're an illegal immigrant.

Every single time, yes. My driver's license shows my immigration status. If I refuse to produce it, guess what happens to me, a US citizen? And after a legal stop in which the police has reasonable suspicion to suspect me of committing or about to commit a crime, I refuse to produce ID, guess what happens to me?

Oh, I am an American, so that is okay. Only illegals should be immune to our laws.

lay off the weed, Moonbeam. All this law does is give officers a chance to enforce current laws, and does not discriminate based on race in any way.

This is another example of "Federal policy sucks so states do stupid shiat trying to counter". And, no, not deporting all the illegal immigrant Mexicans isn't the stupid Federal policy here. The stupid Federal policy here is the fact that an ordinary Mexican has basically no chance of immigrating to the United States legally unless they already have family here.

When I leave the RGV to go to Corpus Christi I must pass through a Border Patrol checkpoint on U.S. 77. They stop every vehicle and ask if you are a U.S. citizen and run the dog around the vehicle. Every road out of S. Texas has Border Patrol checkpoints.

Where is the outrage?? I mean I live in the U.S. the checkpionts are somewhere near 60 miles north from the border.

The government claims that within 100 miles of any land or sea border 4th amendment privileges don't apply and you can be subject to search by any border control officer. Search "constitution free zone" for more information.

thornhill:RibbyK: FlashHarry: good. let red states kick out the "illegals" and watch their economies take a massive hit like they already are in alabama and georgia. the law of unintended consequences - it's more common than you'd think, especially when your laws are written by racist morons.

Citation needed

UA economist finds immigration law could cost Alabama millions in lost taxes, billions in lost GDP

FTFA:The analysis by Dr. Samuel Addy found that 40,000 to 80,000 workers earning between $15,000 to $35,000 annually have left the state. Those departures, the study found, mean the loss of 70,000 to 140,000 direct and indirect jobs.The chief problem, the study finds, is that demand in the economy is reduced."As a result of this exodus, aggregate demand has been reduced, a negative shock that puts the state's economy on a lower growth path than would have been the case without the law," the report argues.

Ahhh, so stop enforcment and Alabama's economy will turn-around?Or FTA: The study also finds that some of the impact is difficult to measure./The authors lump "direct" with "indirect" jobs. If 80,000 "direct" workers leave the state, their jobs are indeed lost, along with support services.

ox45tallboy:FlashHarry: good. let red states kick out the "illegals" and watch their economies take a massive hit like they already are in alabama and georgia. the law of unintended consequences - it's more common than you'd think, especially when your laws are written by racist morons.

The law was written by the prison industry, who are not necessarily "racist morons". Do you think that private prisons give two shiats what color the inmates are? They get paid the same either way.

The laws are racist, and are supported by a bunch of racist asshats (which is why you see these laws in places with a history of racial conflict, such as Georgia and Alabama). But that doesn't mean that the people who wrote the law in order to play off of racial prejudices are necessarily racist themselves, and they certainly aren't morons.

These laws give racist people an outlet; they can't exactly feel superior to blacks when the President is a eloquent, well-spoken Constitutional law professor, but dammit, they're better than a bunch of damn beaners.

This is a simple non-racial issue. The federal government is refusing to enforce a federal immigration law that is costing the people of the state money in taxes to educate and support (through law enforcement, social services, and medical care).

The state, who has the most to lose in monetary terms, has passed a law to allow them to enforce a federal law to reduce the burden of unlawful immigrants.

The law does not state, "Round up all brown people and catapult them back over the border."

The law DOES state "round up all the brown people that cannot PROVE they are here legally, and stick them in a private facility run at taxpayer's expense until ICE decides whether or not to deport them."

Everyone defending the law claims that illegal immigrants are "taking all the jobs, and using all the resources". Three things:

1 - Nearly every illegal immigrant I know that has a legitimate job using false papers pays more taxes than you or I - because they *gasp* don't file for a refund.

2 - Why not go after the business owner that hires the illegals instead of citizens? Yes, I know governments are beginning to do this as well, but if you want a job currently staffed by illegals, why do you view the illegals as the problem, and not the business owner hiring them? Why don't you file a complaint against the business owner? If your country was as much of a shiathole as Mexico, wouldn't you move somewhere else to try to make a better life for yourself? Why blame someone for doing exactly the same thing you would do in the same position?

3 - Are you saying that the children who are using these social services (Medicaid, education) should not be provided for? Many, if not most, are freakin' American citizens! If you give them health care and education now, guess what? They're less likely to turn to a life of crime to support themselves, costing society far more in the long run due to the social cost of the crime itself as well as their incarceration.

I'm extremely confused on the media spin that the justices are likely to let the law go through because that's not what I heard at all. I heard on justice ask AZ 's attorney if it was true that a natural born US citizen has no document to prove they are legal, and another note that there are certain types of immigrants who are here legally who would show up as marked for removal (such as asylum seekers) and finally the Chief Justice asked if people who were totally legal might nonetheless be held in jail for weeks or even months before their legality could be established.

Thunderpipes:"It would mean that anyone, as they are leaving their home - whether they are going to work, to church, where ever they are going - could be asked for their documents."

Liberals really are this farking dumb.

No, THE LAW IS THIS FARKING DUMB. That is EXACTLY what the law says. In fact, under Georgia's "transportation" part of the law, YOU CAN GO TO JAIL for giving your neighbor a ride to work or church or the grocery store.

And don't EVEN try to say, "well, that's not how they're going to enforce it". Bullshiat. If that was true, then why write the law that way?

ox45tallboy:Thunderpipes: "It would mean that anyone, as they are leaving their home - whether they are going to work, to church, where ever they are going - could be asked for their documents."

Liberals really are this farking dumb.

No, THE LAW IS THIS FARKING DUMB. That is EXACTLY what the law says. In fact, under Georgia's "transportation" part of the law, YOU CAN GO TO JAIL for giving your neighbor a ride to work or church or the grocery store.

And don't EVEN try to say, "well, that's not how they're going to enforce it". Bullshiat. If that was true, then why write the law that way?

Why did the federal government write the laws the way they did if they don't intend to enforce it?

FlashHarry:good. let red states kick out the "illegals" and watch their economies take a massive hit like they already are in alabama and georgia. the law of unintended consequences - it's more common than you'd think, especially when your laws are written by racist morons.

Sweet, they can be the "blue states" problem then when the mass exodus away from red states who are actually trying to do something about it except ignoring it.

For the record, I don't like the "papers please" mentality, and I would rather target businesses that use illegal immigrant labor (cut the root, so to say). But at least AZ is trying to do "something" (albeit a little too heavy handed for my tastes) because nobody else is, and it is actually starting something to really focus on the illegal immigration problem in this country.

What most people do not understand about Mexican immigration into the US is the support business owners give to maintaining the status quo. They see anti-immigration laws cutting into their profit margins if they can no longer exploit illegal workers. Anti-immigration legislation is a political football used by politicians to further their own self-serving agendas, and is rooted in the support of not only racists in the population, but by many US citizens who see the flood of immigration as a prime mover in increased crime, devalued property, increased tax burdens and all the other societal ills associated with the expansion of masses of uneducated immigrants from places where the rule of law is purely a function of wealth.

Well minor typo aside, let's see what the long term consequences are on farming, the media rushed out 2 weeks after the law was passed and suggested there was absolutely no way to adjust to the temporary labor shortages.

Yeah, I disagree with the media on this one. The days of migrant labor faded in the 50's-70's with the advent of new, cheaper mass-harvesting equipment and methods. In most cases, crops harvested by hand are done so only because the technology to mass-harvest certain vegetables is still prohibitively expensive for smaller, farmer's market type operation. As demand increases, this machinery will become less expensive.

This still doesn't mean that these farmers didn't take a hit this past season.

FlashHarry:good. let red states kick out the "illegals" and watch their economies take a massive hit like they already are in alabama and georgia. the law of unintended consequences - it's more common than you'd think, especially when your laws are written by racist morons.

I suspect most of the country would like to see their state's economy take the 'massive hit' incurred by Alabama since 9/2011 (when their law took effect).

In the second link, you might want to note that unemployment in Alabama began to plummet in June of 2011 and has fallen two points in the following nine months. Coincidentally (or maybe not), Alabama's immigration law was signed by the governor on 10 June 2011.

It can be argued that the unemployment change is unrelated to the law's passage and implementation, but to say that Alabama's economy has "taken a massive hit" since the law's passage isn't just inaccurate - it is a blatant lie.

ox45tallboy:The law DOES state "round up all the brown people that cannot PROVE they are here legally, and stick them in a private facility run at taxpayer's expense until ICE decides whether or not to deport them."

No it doesn't, that is an outright lie.

2 - Why not go after the business owner that hires the illegals instead of citizens? Yes, I know governments are beginning to do this as well, but if you want a job currently staffed by illegals, why do you view the illegals as the problem, and not the business owner hiring them? Why don't you file a complaint against the business owner? If your country was as much of a shiathole as Mexico, wouldn't you move somewhere else to try to make a better life for yourself? Why blame someone for doing exactly the same thing you would do in the same position?

ox45tallboyFlashHarry: good. let red states kick out the "illegals" and watch their economies take a massive hit like they already are in alabama and georgia. the law of unintended consequences - it's more common than you'd think, especially when your laws are written by racist morons.

The law was written by the prison industry, who are not necessarily "racist morons". Do you think that private prisons give two shiats what color the inmates are? They get paid the same either way.

Yes. Yes I absolutely do. Not out of racisim, but because that is their target demographic. Take for instance malt liquor. Here are a few sample ads:

Or simply feel free to tune into BET for a few minutes to watch the commercials there. Do corporations like the ones who produce Colt 45, Newport, Tecaté, Dark & Lovely, or anything else care if White People buy their products? Of course not. But their ads are not directed towards them nor are they intended to inspire them to purchase. If they do, well then great. Extra revenue.

The point here being is that Private Prisons are a product that is marketed like any other out there for non-whites. It's just not one that is 100% voluntary participation by the consumer. Why? Because blacks and browns typically don't have the monetary resources in the forms of cash or credit to hire a proper lawyer to get their asses out of jail. So yes, blacks and browns are the targets of private prisons.

Is it racist? I dunno, what do you think? Are malt liquor breweries racist? Is BET racist with all of their ads and shows that have such negative effects on it's viewers?

Speaking of smoking, look at the history of marijuana criminalization. It was done specifically to target blacks.

And this bill does not "enforce immigration law".

Do you carry proof of your citizenship around with you everywhere you go? If you're a citizen, then you probably don't. And you're not required to. But under this law, if your skin is brown, you HAVE to carry PROOF you're a citizen, or get taken to the pokey until you can convince someone to find your proof and bring it to them.

Incog_Neeto:rudemix: Best of luck finding enough of a workforce in your population full of geriatrics and trash to work in AZ heat through the summer.

I guess they will just have to pay people more to do those jobs, maybe out of the CEO's salary perhaps

I know a farmer in Yuma AZ and he has had no problems as he always hired legal workers. The Farmers who don't will have no problem finding legal workers they are just mad they have to work a little harder at planning and hiring for busy picks and planting instead of having large pools of workers where they can go and hire at a drop of a hat even as quick as the day before the pick. They now have to actually plan poor babies.

King Something:RibbyK: FTA: Latinos who are here legally to be asked about their immigration status.

For the past 20 years, I've been asked about my immigration status (Form I-9) on a job application or when hired, and *shock* I didn't run to the ACLU.. If you're in the US legally and actually want a job...

/I wash my own dishes//Am a proud parent who never hired a babysitter (relatives only)

Have you ever been asked about your immigration status at a traffic stop?

Because Arizona's law allows cops to do that. And if you can't prove you're in this country legally right then and there, they'll cuff you and put you in the precinct holding cell until they finish doing enough of a background check on you to determine whether or not you're an illegal immigrant.

In my wallet I have a drivers license, social security card, pilots license and registered voters card. I did not intentionally gather any of this documentation in preparation for being stopped and questioned. It is just what's on my body whenever I leave the house.

Speaking of smoking, look at the history of marijuana criminalization. It was done specifically to target blacks.

And this bill does not "enforce immigration law".

Do you carry proof of your citizenship around with you everywhere you go? If you're a citizen, then you probably don't. And you're not required to. But under this law, if your skin is brown, you HAVE to carry PROOF you're a citizen, or get taken to the pokey until you can convince someone to find your proof and bring it to them.

Geotpf:This is another example of "Federal policy sucks so states do stupid shiat trying to counter". And, no, not deporting all the illegal immigrant Mexicans isn't the stupid Federal policy here. The stupid Federal policy here is the fact that an ordinary Mexican has basically no chance of immigrating to the United States legally unless they already have family here.

Link (pdf file)

No, the stupid federal poiicy is that an ordinary Mexican can immigrate just because he has family living here. 300 million+ people is too many. The country's full. Those who are here (legally) can stay. Those who are here illegally should be loaded into a catapult and "deported" in the general direction of wherever they came from, and no one else should be able to come here as anything other than a tourist. That would be a smart federal policy.

RibbyK:thornhill: RibbyK: FlashHarry: good. let red states kick out the "illegals" and watch their economies take a massive hit like they already are in alabama and georgia. the law of unintended consequences - it's more common than you'd think, especially when your laws are written by racist morons.

Citation needed

UA economist finds immigration law could cost Alabama millions in lost taxes, billions in lost GDP

FTFA:The analysis by Dr. Samuel Addy found that 40,000 to 80,000 workers earning between $15,000 to $35,000 annually have left the state. Those departures, the study found, mean the loss of 70,000 to 140,000 direct and indirect jobs.The chief problem, the study finds, is that demand in the economy is reduced."As a result of this exodus, aggregate demand has been reduced, a negative shock that puts the state's economy on a lower growth path than would have been the case without the law," the report argues.

Ahhh, so stop enforcment and Alabama's economy will turn-around?Or FTA: The study also finds that some of the impact is difficult to measure./The authors lump "direct" with "indirect" jobs. If 80,000 "direct" workers leave the state, their jobs are indeed lost, along with support services.

The author acknowledges that coming up with an exact number is difficult, but his underlying point is that by pushing wage earners out of the state, you're going to reduce tax revenue and overall spending. You're really going to argue with that?

And on the issue of tax revenue, while these folks probably aren't paying property or income tax, these taxes are extremely low in Alabama -- cities and counties in Alabama heavily rely on sales tax. I used to live in Montgomery, AL, and the sales tax there was 10%, which was on everything, including food. So the lost sales tax revenue is going to be significant for Alabama cities and towns.

Speaking of smoking, look at the history of marijuana criminalization. It was done specifically to target blacks.

And this bill does not "enforce immigration law".

Do you carry proof of your citizenship around with you everywhere you go? If you're a citizen, then you probably don't. And you're not required to. But under this law, if your skin is brown, you HAVE to carry PROOF you're a citizen, or get taken to the pokey until you can convince someone to find your proof and bring it to them.

Why do you keep picking on brown people? This law states no color preference yet you keep interjecting it like some racist bastard. You are being willfully misleading and ignorant, lay off the crack and get out of your moms basement once in a while.

Carth:Why did the federal government write the laws the way they did if they don't intend to enforce it?

Interesting question here. The Republicans don't want the law enforced, because business owners have a labor force that is a.) cheap and b.) unwilling to demand worker's rights (OSHA compliance, minimum wage, right to unionize).

The Democrats don't want it enforced for humanitarian reasons - these are human farking beings just trying to do better for themselves and their families.

thornhill:RibbyK: thornhill: RibbyK: FlashHarry: good. let red states kick out the "illegals" and watch their economies take a massive hit like they already are in alabama and georgia. the law of unintended consequences - it's more common than you'd think, especially when your laws are written by racist morons.

Citation needed

UA economist finds immigration law could cost Alabama millions in lost taxes, billions in lost GDP

FTFA:The analysis by Dr. Samuel Addy found that 40,000 to 80,000 workers earning between $15,000 to $35,000 annually have left the state. Those departures, the study found, mean the loss of 70,000 to 140,000 direct and indirect jobs.The chief problem, the study finds, is that demand in the economy is reduced."As a result of this exodus, aggregate demand has been reduced, a negative shock that puts the state's economy on a lower growth path than would have been the case without the law," the report argues.

Ahhh, so stop enforcment and Alabama's economy will turn-around?Or FTA: The study also finds that some of the impact is difficult to measure./The authors lump "direct" with "indirect" jobs. If 80,000 "direct" workers leave the state, their jobs are indeed lost, along with support services.

The author acknowledges that coming up with an exact number is difficult, but his underlying point is that by pushing wage earners out of the state, you're going to reduce tax revenue and overall spending. You're really going to argue with that?

And on the issue of tax revenue, while these folks probably aren't paying property or income tax, these taxes are extremely low in Alabama -- cities and counties in Alabama heavily rely on sales tax. I used to live in Montgomery, AL, and the sales tax there was 10%, which was on everything, including food. So the lost sales tax revenue is going to be significant for Alabama cities and towns.

And yet they will save much more when they no longer have to pay for health care, schooling, free school lunch programs, WIC, ADC, ect... for illegals.

fakeeyes:Yeah, and it might lead to the needless detainment of heads of international companies. Hopefully,, this does happen, and Arizona looses millions of dollars. Money usually speaks louder than the xenophobic ethnist asshats who wrote up this POS descriminatory law.

RibbyK:FTA: Latinos who are here legally to be asked about their immigration status.

For the past 20 years, I've been asked about my immigration status (Form I-9) on a job application or when hired, and *shock* I didn't run to the ACLU.. If you're in the US legally and actually want a job...

/I wash my own dishes//Am a proud parent who never hired a babysitter (relatives only)

And guess what? NO ONE CARES or is against businesses doing this when hiring.

What we object to is that American citizens just walking down the street can be subject to arrest solely based on an officer's suspicion that they're not in the country legally.

In every single Zimmerman thread, we've been told that "hispanic" is not a race, and in fact the man is white. Yet in every Arizona thread, we are told that the only reason this law is in effect is because RACISM! Which is it?

ox45tallboy:ChiliCon: In before the race baiters..... oh, wait.. never mind.

This is a simple non-racial issue. The federal government is refusing to enforce a federal immigration law that is costing the people of the state money in taxes to educate and support (through law enforcement, social services, and medical care).

The state, who has the most to lose in monetary terms, has passed a law to allow them to enforce a federal law to reduce the burden of unlawful immigrants.

The law does not state, "Round up all brown people and catapult them back over the border."

The law DOES state "round up all the brown people that cannot PROVE they are here legally, and stick them in a private facility run at taxpayer's expense until ICE decides whether or not to deport them."

Everyone defending the law claims that illegal immigrants are "taking all the jobs, and using all the resources". Three things:

1 - Nearly every illegal immigrant I know that has a legitimate job using false papers pays more taxes than you or I - because they *gasp* don't file for a refund.

They also probably lean on social services more heavily than your average citizen for the same reasons - they have to stay off the radar. If you're drawing as much or more out of the system as you're putting in, that's not exactly something that will scale.There's also the chance the legit social security number they made up belongs to someone else, which is _itself_ a crime.

2 - Why not go after the business owner that hires the illegals instead of citizens? Yes, I know governments are beginning to do this as well, but if you want a job currently staffed by illegals, why do you view the illegals as the problem, and not the business owner hiring them? Why don't you file a complaint against the business owner?

I fully agree. If there's no one willing to hire someone under the table, the supply eventually figures it out, and goes away. There was an immigration bust at a meat packing plant in southern WI a couple years back and everyone protested the bust because the company was "creating jobs". The fact that they were breaking the law and exploiting people apparently got them a pass in the local community.

If your country was as much of a shiathole as Mexico, wouldn't you move somewhere else to try to make a better life for yourself? Why blame someone for doing exactly the same thing you would do in the same position?

No one's got a problem with people coming into the country legally and becoming a productive member of society. It's what the country was _founded_ on. But there are laws for a reason.

ox45tallboy:As demand increases, this machinery will become less expensive

Farm machinery isn't cheap. farking tractors have been around for decades and they're still expensive as hell. "Demand" for farm machinery won't be great enough to drive the price down though "demand" for more scarce produce will help to finance said machinery.

JustGetItRight:Funny thing too, the guy was from Germany, so I highly doubt he was brown.

No he was an upper class white guy in a nice rental car, exactly the type of guy they claimed would NEVER be subjected to the law because it was all about brown people. Yet another thing these laws opponents were wrong about.

And for the record, my first license was in TN, where I showed my Social Security card and HS diploma (graduated early, otherwise would have had to show proof of attendance from my school). No birth certificate. (NOTE; this changed a few years ago in TN, now you have to show proof of citizenship).